London has grown steadily for the past 30 years, in people, jobs and self confidence. Population growth has been driven both by in-migration (more people moving to London than moving away) and by natural change (more births than deaths). International migration – both EU and non-EU – has been a major factor in the city’s growth, outweighing domestic migration, where London has been a net exporter of people.

For some, London’s growth should be celebrated as evidence of its success as a global city: it’s a jobs machine; an economic powerhouse; a gateway to the UK; a generator of fiscal surpluses for the whole nation. For others, London is a “dark star”, draining the rest of the UK of people, talent, public spending and media attention. Its growth is seen as unnatural and unbalanced, leading to a large and increasing gap in opportunities, wealth and income between London and the rest of the UK.

These debates are familiar and entrenched – but perhaps they are becoming out of date. There are already some indications that London is at the edge of a major inflection point: could it be that, rather than continuing to grow, London is about to stall, or even go into decline?

Prime and decline

For much of the 20th century, London was in decline. After World War II, the city’s manufacturing and goods-handling economy faltered. Between 1966 and 1974, London’s manufacturing employment fell by 27 per cent - a loss of 390,000 jobs. Planning and economic policy favoured dispersal, more balanced regional growth and the creation of New Towns and Garden Cities outside of London. The capital’s population declined most rapidly in the 1970s: over the decade, the capital experienced a net loss of 740,000 people – that’s 10 per cent of the city’s population.

Few, if any, commentators foresaw the change that came in the mid-1980s, as the long decline in both population and jobs slowed and then reversed. Sentiment began to shift; London began to look like a place to be, rather than a city to flee. The completion of the single market, freedom of movement and EU expansion helped London to develop a specifically European economic and cultural role, alongside its status as a global city.

Globalisation – the easier movement of people, goods, services, money and ideas across borders – boosted London’s role as a centre for communication and control, and as a meeting place within the world economy. Language, time zone and cultural assets all helped. English became the global business language. London’s working day helpfully overlaps with Asia in the morning and with North America in the afternoon. And the city’s liveability, cosmopolitanism and cultural offer all made it attractive as a location for decision-makers, skilled workers and students. Complementing this economic growth, by the turn of the 21st century policy shifted to favour cities.

Without the benefit of hindsight, it is much harder to decide if we are now approaching a move in the opposite direction. There is some evidence of this: in the year to mid-2017, London’s population experienced the slowest rate of growth in over a decade, at only 0.6 per cent. International migration to London has declined to a net gain of only 83,000 individuals in 2016-17, though it remains the largest contributor to growth in the capital.

National Insurance Number registrations by people coming from overseas to work are dropping, with EU registrations falling 25 per cent year-on-year to the first quarter of 2018. Net internal migration saw a balance of 107,000 people leave London for the rest of the UK, more than 14 per cent higher than the previous year. Over 4.7m international visitors came to the capital in the final three months of 2017 - a noticeable 5.7 per cent fall compared with 2016.

Slowing down? Image: Merlijn Hoek/Flickr/creative commons.

Passenger journeys on public transport are also decreasing slightly. Falls in ridership may be an early sign that London is at or close to reaching peak growth. Or they may be driven by other factors – for example by changing work or commuting patterns, generational differences in housing choice and lifestyle or the rapid rise of ride-hailing apps.

Still the main attraction

Yet despite concerns over the impacts of Brexit, London’s economy has proved resilient, with unemployment continuing to fall and job numbers increasing. The number of jobs increased to 5.863m in the final quarter of 2017, a 98,000 (1.7 per cent) increase from a year earlier and a new record-high. The employment rate in London stood at 75.2 per cent in the three months to March 2018, also a record high. Job growth is predicted to continue, as job vacancies in the capital have reportedly increased by over 14 per cent in the year to the second quarter of 2017.

London continues to be the most productive region in the UK, although many new jobs have been created in low-pay and low-productivity sectors. And it’s still a very competitive destination for investment. In the EY 2016 European Attractiveness Survey, 57 per cent of almost 1,500 business leaders sampled put London among the top three cities for foreign direct investment in Europe.

So is London’s long boom finally coming to an end? Like any demographic or economic turning point, this one will be easier to spot in hindsight. If current trends continue, then London’s growth may slow considerably - or even perhaps reverse - over the next 30 years. Brexit could affect this in unforeseen ways - although the economic impacts of Brexit are likely to be worse outside London than within. And for the time being, London is still growing in terms of people, jobs and economic activity.

Uber is introducing a levy of 15p per mile on London users to help fund a transition to electric vehicles and help tackle air pollution. Its goal is to encourage half its drivers to go electric by 2021 and to go fully electric by 2025.

There are a number of benefits to the idea. Moving to cleaner transportation is an important public good with a myriad of general health benefits. It should be an urgent priority for all UK cities. But the question of who pays for this transition is fundamental to whether it is done fairly. As a process, change needs be done in partnership with people, not to them.

So who is actually being asked to foot the bill for this much needed transition? Fresh analysis by the New Economics Foundation shows that while the PR benefits are likely to accrue to Uber, its consumers and drivers will foot the bill in its entirety, while also taking on much of the risk.

Uber estimate that drivers will be eligible for £4,500 in funds to purchase a new electric vehicle after three years of service – the maximum period of time for which drivers can accrue credit. By comparison, the cost of a cheap second-hand electric car meeting Uber’s requirements for UberX costs in excess of £12,000, while a second hand vehicle suitable for UberLux would set drivers back around £45,000.

For those drivers receiving around £4,500, this would still imply the need to contribute thousands of pounds, if not tens of thousands, in personal funds. Even after allowing for a fall in prices for electric vehicles, drivers are being asked to make a minimum contribution of between 55 per cent and 85 per cent towards the total cost of electrification. The remainder of the cost will be met indirectly by consumers – either in the form of higher charges or else being priced out Uber’s services altogether.

Where drivers don’t have access to this sort of cash, the expectation will be that they borrow – which means taking on the risk of debt repayments while earning close to minimum wage. Being able to keep the 15p levy once driving an electric vehicle is unlikely to cover the cost of new interest payments. But failure to use the scheme at all could mean unemployment after 2025.

While drivers are forced into arrears to consolidate their jobs, Uber may also find itself with a considerable surplus from the scheme, as a result of drivers leaving the platform early or choosing not to apply for the grant. Uber has suggested that any surplus will be reinvested into supporting facilities, such as charge points for electric cars. But this means that the cost of moving to green infrastructure is coming at the expense of extra private debt for drivers (which could otherwise have been funded out of the levy). Such a trade-off is simply incompatible with a green transition that is morally just.

The shift in strategy from Uber towards more renewable transport technology is clearly welcome on environmental grounds. Doing so solely at the expense of consumers drivers is not. For any transition to be fair, Uber needs to meet its share of the costs.

Duncan McCann is a Researcher at the New Economics Foundation. He tweets @DuncanEMcCann. You can find NEF’s work on transport here.

We notice that you're using ad blocker. If we can't support the site on advertising revenue, CityMetric will go the way of, I dunno, the Aldwych branch of the Piccadilly line. Which, let's be honest, would suck.

That's the bad news. The good news is that, if you contribute now, you can support CityMetric's quality, independent journalism another way - and this message will disappear for the next 30 days.